# Smt. Ina Varshney & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 1027 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2014-08-22 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43918 of 2014 - **Bench:** Amreswar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ina-varshney-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42931 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art.-226- Writ Jurisdiction-Alternative Remedy-no absolute bar-where principle of Natural Justice violated-remedy to appeal-not come in way-petition allowed. Held: Para-7 & 8 ## Text 2 All]. Smt. Ina Varshney & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1027 as the completion of the requirements for appearing at the Second Professional Examination are concerned and even thereafter. 14. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THR HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43918 of 2014 Smt. Ina Varshney & Ors. .Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C.; Sri B. Dayal Constitution of India, Art.-226- Writ Jurisdiction-Alternative Remedy-no absolute bar-where principle of Natural Justice violated-remedy to appeal-not come in way-petition allowed. Held: Para-7 & 8 7. We are satisfied that the aforesaid order dated 21.11.2014 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without any opportunity to rebut the report dated 20.5.2014. The report was obtained a day earlier and the order was passed the following day without information to the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2014 is hereby set aside leaving it open to the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners preferably within a period of three months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Case Law discussed: 1998(9) SCC 1; 2010 (3) SCC 732; 2009 (1) AWC 566. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel appears for the Meerut Development Authority. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.5.2014, passed by the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut rejecting the representation of the petitioner regarding sanction of map. 3. At the very outset, Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the Development Authority, takes a preliminary objection that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of filing an appeal and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 4. In reply to the aforesaid prelimianry objection, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court to assert that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and in case of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner shall not be relegated to the alternative remedy. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the 1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 and in the case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others, 2010 (3) SCC 732. He has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohammad Aslam vs. Rampur Development Authority through Secretary and another, 2009 (1) AWC 566 wherein in paragraph 8 of the judgement, it has been held as under: We are of the considered opinion that under sub-section(9) of Section 15 it is mandatory for the Development Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to a person, whose site plan has been earlier approved, disclosing the grounds on which it is proposed to be cancelled, which it is proposed to be cancelled. We, however, find that ground mentioned for cancellation of the site plan, earlier approved in favour of the petitioner, under the impugned order is squarely covered by the conditions mentioned in Section 15 and therefore the provisions of the said section are squarely attracted in the facts of the present case. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the order dated 11.2.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8313 of 2014, a representation was submitted before the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, respondent no. 3 and the same has been decided vide order dated 21.5.2014 on the basis of some inspection report dated 20.5.2014 of a joint team of the Development Authority and the Tehsil, illegally holding that the construction of the Map No. 1548 of 2013 falls in the area acquired by the proposal of Development Authority. 6. The submission is that this order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice solely on the basis of an ex parte joint inspection report dated 20.5.2014 that was never made known to the petitioner He further submits that even on demand the aforesaid joint inspection report dated 20.5.2014 was not supplied to the petitioners. 7. We are satisfied that the aforesaid order dated 21.11.2014 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without any opportunity to rebut the report dated 20.5.2014. The report was obtained a day earlier and the order was passed the following day without information to the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2014 is hereby set aside leaving it open to the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners preferably within a period of three months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and fresh orders will be passed independently by the authority. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the observations made hereinabove. -------- 2 All]. Smt. Vandana Varma & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. 1029 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45314 of 2014 Smt. Vandana Varma & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Rohit Agarwal, Sri Shashi Nandan Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Dhirendra Singh, Sri Nikhil Kumar U.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965-Section 38 read with U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1968-Rule 115- Dismissal on basis of decision of management -charge mentioned in agenda related to Rule 115can not be passed without holding disciplinary proceeding-under rule 38-held proceeding without jurisdiction-quashed. Held: Para-24 Since learned counsel for the parties have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at this stage itself, the writ petition is allowed, the resolution dated 21.8.2014 and the consequential communication dated 22.8.2014 disqualifying the petitioners are hereby quashed leaving it open to the respective authorities to take any action in case so warranted in law in accordance with the rules and procedure as observed hereinabove. Case Law discussed: 1980 A.L. J. page 1098; 1992 (10) Lucknow Civil Decisions page 263; 2003 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C Page 1132; 1978 (4) A.L.R. Page 949; W.P. No. 5131 of 2013 decided on 31.01.2013; 1998(8) SCC Page 1. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Nikhil Kumar for the respondent nos. 5 and 6, Sri Dhirendra Singh for the respondent no. 7 through its alleged Director Sri Ashok and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition be disposed of finally at this stage itself as the respondents do not propose to file any counter affidavits at this stage keeping in view the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed. 3. The contention raised by Sri Shashi Nandan, while questioning the impugned action of removal of the petitioners, who are office bearers of the Society and fall within the definition of "Officer", under the impugned orders dated 13.8.2014 and 21.8.2014, is to the effect that the exercise of powers under which such removal has been made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee of Management of the Society, inasmuch as, the removal of the office bearers can only be done by proceeding to take action under Section 38 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder. He submits that the action in the present case has been purportedly taken by invoking Rule 115 read with Rule 453 and Rule 454 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 which is a malicious exercise of power that is colorable and unlawfully executed. 4. The contention is that none of the disqualifications have been incurred by the petitioners as envisaged under Rule 453 and therefore Rule 454 cannot be invoked by the respondent no. 7 for the